Schroeder v. Arthur Sales Co. Inc.

• Citation: 62 A.2d 751
• Parties: SCHROEDER v. ARTHUR SALES CO., INC.
• Decision Date: 28 December 1948
• Court: New Jersey County Court

62 A.2d 751

SCHROEDER

v.ARTHUR SALES CO., INC.

Middlesex County Court, New Jersey.

Dec. 28, 1948.

Appeal from Workmen's Compensation Bureau.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Lillian F. Schroeder, claimant, for the death of Walter A. Schroeder, opposed by Arthur Sales Co., Inc., employer. From an award of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau granting compensation, the employer appeals.

Determination in accordance with opinion.

Harold N. Gast, of Perth Amboy (Louis C. Jacobson, of Newark, of counsel), for petitioner-appellee.

John C. Grimshaw, of Newark (George L. Burton, of South River, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

MORRIS, Judge.

This is an appeal from the Workmen's Compensation Bureau. The question involved is the usual one: Was there a compensable accident within the intendment of the statute. The Deputy Commissioner held that there was.

The proofs disclose that on November 3, 1947 decedent, Walter A. Schroeder, was employed by the respondent as an auto mechanic. The testimony shows that decedent had an artificial right leg. It further appears that decedent was suffering from a pre-existing heart condition. Shortly after reporting for work on the morning in question, in the course of his employment, he jacked up the front end of a car on which he had been assigned to work. At the completion of the hoisting operation he was observed to fall over backwards to the floor of the garage in an unconscious condition. He was taken to the Perth Amboy General Hospital where he died that afternoon. The death certificate indicates coronary insufficiency as the immediate cause of death.

The principal question presented is whether petitioner has sustained the burden of proving a compensable accident, within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 et seq., which arose out of and in the course of decedent's employment, or whether, as respondent contends, the proofs indicate that he died in the normal course of events, without the intervention of an accidental occurrence.

The requirement of the act, that injury to be compensable must arise by accident, is satisfied if the petitioner discharges the burden of proving that the condition complained of is related to or affected by the employment, and, if but for the employment, would not have occurred. Further, it is well settled that strain or physical exertion may be a competent cause in precipitating a coronary injury so as to constitute an accident within the meaning of the act.

In the instant case it appears that decedent, immediately prior to his collapse, hosited an automobile, employing a hydraulic jack, preparatory to making repairs. The testimony indicates that the operation included the pulling of the jack some 75 feet to the point of operation, kneeling down to center the jack under the vehicle some pumping from this position to establish contact between the jack and the automobile, and then a pumping from the standing position until the said automobile was raised some 2 or 2 1/2 feet from the floor. This pumping from the standing position was done by taking the jack handle in both hands and raising it up and pushing it down in an arc of travel which reached its high point approximately in front of decedent's chest and a low point just below his knees. This operation involved a bending at the waist with each downward stroke. It further appears that some 20 strokes are required to raise an automobile to this height when the jack is operated in this manner.

There is much testimony to indicate that some people can and do operate this same jack or similar jacks with little or no apparent effort and without any apparent ill effects. There is also testimony to the effect that this jack can be operated with little or no effort by...